Synopsys, Inc. v. Sunlune Corporation

Opinion

1 2 6 7 SYNOPSYS, INC., Case No. 24-cv-00220-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE 9 Vv. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER; AND 10 SUNLUNE CORPORATION, SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO MAKE PROPER 11 Defendant. APPEARANCE THROUGH COUNSEL [Re: ECF 31]

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Sunlune Corporation’s Answer © 15 (ECF 31), which is unopposed, as well as Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF 33), the Court orders as follows: 16 (1) The motion is suitable for decision without oral argument, and the hearing

= 17 || previously set for August 8, 2024 is VACATED. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Z 18 (2) The motion is GRANTED and Defendant’s answer (ECF 29) is STRICKEN. The 19 || answer was filed by Defendant acting pro se. However, a corporate defendant cannot proceed 20 || before the Court pro se — a corporation may proceed only through a licensed attorney. See In re 21 Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The law is clear that a corporation can be 22 || represented only by a licensed attorney.”). 23 (3) Defendant is granted 30 days, until May 23, 2024, to make an appearance through 24 || counsel. If counsel does not make an appearance for Defendant by May 23, 2024, Plaintiff may 25 || file a motion for clerk’s entry of default and, subsequently, a motion for default judgment. 27 || Dated: April 23, 2024 4 / tt tL (LA an BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge